This document is available
in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and the PDF.
To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded
from the Adobe site. For an official
signed copy, please contact the Antitrust
Documents Group.

Pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15
U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h)/ the United States files this Competitive Impact
Statement relating to the proposed Consent Decree submitted for
entry in this civil antitrust proceeding.

I.

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING

The United States and the states of Oregon, California, and
Washington have filed a civil antitrust suit alleging that ten (10)
commercial crab fishermen and various unnamed co-conspirators
conspired to restrain competition among commercial fishermen in
violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Complaint
asks the Court to find that the defendant fishermen have violated §
1 of the Sherman Act, requests that the defendants pay civil
penalties and the costs of the investigation to the plaintiff
states and further requests the Court to enjoin the continuance of
the alleged unlawful acts.

Entry of the proposed Consent Decree will terminate the
action, except that the Court will retain jurisdiction over the
matter for further proceedings which may be required to interpret,
enforce or modify the Consent Decree or to punish violations of any
of its provisions.

II.

PRACTICES GIVING RISE TO THE ALLEGED VIOLATION

The defendants are commercial crab fishermen who fish in waters off
the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington.

The Oregon defendant fishermen are not members of a
fishermen's marketing association. They are thus not entitled to
the exemption given to fishermen's marketing associations by the
Fishermen's Collective Marketing Act of 1934 ("FCMA"), 15 U.S.C. §§
521-522. The exemptions provided by the FCMA do not apply to
fishermen who do not belong to fish marketing associations formed
pursuant to the FCMA or to FCMA association members who enter into
marketing agreements with non-FCMA association fishermen. Price
fixing and horizontal boycott agreements which are not protected by
the FCMA are perse violations of §1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
§l)and are subject to criminal prosecution by the United States
Department of Justice. The United States chose not to proceed
criminally in this matter because most of the defendants mistakenly
believed their conduct was protected by the FCMA from prosecution
under the Sherman Act.

The United States and the states of Oregon, California, and Washington
contend and were prepared to show at trial, that beginning in or about
December 1995 and continuing up until at least January 1996, the defendants
were leaders in a conspiracy with unnamed co-conspirators to restrain
competition among commercial crab fishermen in violation of § 1
of the Sherman Act. The conspiracy consisted of an agreement and concert
of action between the defendants and co-conspirators to fix the "ex
vessel" price (price at which fishermen sell their catch to purchasers
such as processors)at a minimum of $1.25 per pound and to eliminate
competition among commercial fishermen in the sale of crab. In furtherance
of this conspiracy the defendants and co-conspirators: (1) agreed to
sell crab at a minimum "ex vessel" price of $1.25 per pound; (2) agreed
not to fish for crab until all purchasers operating in the major West
Coast crab fishing ports had agreed to pay a minimum "ex vessel" price
of $1.25 per pound; and (3) compelled, through threats of physical and
economic harm, harassment and other forms of intimidation, other fishermen
not to fish for crabs until all the purchasers agreed to pay a minimum
$1.25 "ex-vessel" price.

This conspiracy fixed the "ex vessel" price of crab sold by
commercial fishermen, eliminated price and other forms of
competition among commercial fishermen in the sale of crab and
deprived purchasers of commercial crab of the benefits of free and
open competition in the sale of crab.

III.

EXPLANATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

The United States and the defendants have stipulated that the
Court may enter the proposed Consent Decree after compliance with
the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h).
The proposed Consent Decree provides that its entry does not
constitute any evidence against or admission by either party with
respect to any issue of fact or law.

Under the provisions of Section 2(e) of the Antitrust Procedures and
Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. § 16(e), the proposed Consent Decree may
not be entered unless the Court finds that entry is in the public interest.
Section XII of the proposed Consent Decree sets forth such a finding.

The proposed Consent Decree is intended to ensure that the
defendants discontinue all practices which restrain competition
among commercial fishermen.

A. Prohibitions And Obligations

Under Section IV of the proposed Consent Decree, the
defendants are enjoined from participating in any discussion,
communication or agreement, except as members of FCMA fishermen's
marketing associations interacting with other members of such
associations, regarding: (1) the "ex vessel-prices to be
negotiated between purchasers and the defendants; (2) any terms or
conditions to be offered for the sale of seafood; or (3) refraining
from fishing while commercial fishermen are negotiating with
purchasers on an "ex vessel" price. Section IV also enjoins the
defendants from requesting or coercing other fishermen to refrain
from fishing or to sell fish to processors at specified prices or
under specified terms or conditions. The defendants are also
enjoined from any interference with any other commercial
fishermen's business through threats or other means of
intimidation. The Consent Decree further enjoins the defendants
from impeding, obstructing, or preventing any person from
processing, purchasing, or selling or offering to purchase or sell
crabor any other seafood. Finally, the Consent Decree restrains
the defendants from compelling any fishermen or other person to
become a member, or to participate in the activities, of any
association.

Section V. of the Consent Decree requires the defendants to
pay the states of Oregon, California and Washington pursuant to ORS
646.760 and ORS 180.095, RCW 19.86.080 and 19.86.090, and Call
Prof. Sc Bus. Code 16750 $90,874.00 for civil penalties and
reimbursement of attorney fees and investigative costs.

B. Scope Of The Proposed Consent Decree

Section XI. of the proposed Consent Decree provides that the
Consent Decree shall remain in effect for five years.

Section III. of the proposed Consent Decree provides that the
Consent Decree shall apply to the defendants and all of their
managers, agents, employees, affiliates, successors and assigns,
and to those persons in active concert or participation with any of
them who shall have received actual notice of the Consent Decree.

C. Effect Of The Proposed Consent Decree On Competition

The relief set out in the proposed Consent Decree is designed
to prevent recurrence of the activities alleged in the Complaint.
The proposed Consent Decree's provisions are intended to ensure
that commercial crab fishermen act independently, except as members
of a FCMA fish marketing association interacting with other
association members, in any marketing or pricing decisions and that
they not interfere with the marketing and price decisions of other
commercial crab fishermen.

IV.

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

The alternative to the proposed Consent Decree would be a full trial
of the case. In the view of the Department of Justice and the states
of Oregon, California and Washington, such a trial would involve substantial
cost to the plaintiffs and is not warranted since the proposed Consent
Decree provides almost all the relief sought in the Complaint.

V.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS

Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15) provides that
any person who has been injured as a result of conduct prohibited
by the antitrust laws may bring suit in federal court to recover
three times the damages suffered, as well as costs and reasonable
attorney fees. Under the provisions of Section 5(a) (15 U.S.C. §
16(a)), this Consent Decree has no primafacie effect in the
lawsuits which may be brought against the defendants.

VI.

PROCEDURES AVAILABLE FOR MODIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED CONSENT DECREE

As provided by the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, any person
believing that the proposed Consent Decree should be modified may submit
written comments to Christopher S Crook, Acting Chief, San Francisco
Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, Box 36046, Room 10-0101, San Francisco, California 94012, within
the 60-day period provided by the Act. The comments and the Government's
responses to them will be filed with the Court and published in the
Federal Register. All comments will be given due consideration
by the Department of Justice, which remains free to withdraw its consent
to the proposed Consent Decree at any time period to its entry if it
should determine that some modification of the Consent Decree is necessary
to the public interest. The proposed Consent Decree itself provides
that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this action, and that the
parties may apply to the Court for such orders as may be necessary or
appropriate for the modification or enforcement of the Consent Decree.

VII.

DETERMINATIVE DOCUMENTS

No materials and documents of the type described in Section
2(b) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (15 U.S.C. §
16(b)) were considered in formulating this proposed Consent
Decree. Consequently, none are filed herewith.